Citation Nr: 0734056
Decision Date: 10/30/07 Archive Date: 11/07/07
DOCKET NO. 05-28 271 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, Florida
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.
2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Nicole Klassen, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from April 1975 to
February 1978.
This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from an August 2004 rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg,
Florida. In that decision, the RO denied a claim for
service connection for both bilateral hearing loss and
tinnitus.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the
appellant if further action is required.
REMAND
Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although
the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is
necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon
which to decide the veteran's claim so that he is afforded
every possible consideration.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d)(2), VA must obtain a medical
examination or opinion when such is necessary to make a
decision on a claim. Specifically, a VA examination is
required where the record contains competent evidence of a
current disability, and indicates that the disability or
symptoms may be associated with military service, but does
not contain sufficient evidence for the Secretary to make a
decision. Id.
In this case, the veteran contends that he has hearing loss
and tinnitus, which he believes are attributable to noise
exposure during service in the navy. The veteran reported
that while in service he was exposed to loud noise from such
activities as standing watch as forward lookout with little
or no hearing protection, using pneumatic drills on a daily
basis, being assigned to gun crew with little or no hearing
protection, and assignment to sleeping quarters directly
below a gun mount.
The service medical records indicate that the veteran did
experience a slight decrease in hearing acuity between
audiograms at entrance and separation. The veteran's service
medical records also show that he was given one pair of ear
plugs in January 1978, toward the end of his service.
The veteran underwent a private, post-service audiology
examination in March 2004, at which time John P. Taggert,
M.D. diagnosed the veteran with mild high frequency hearing
loss and tinnitus, stating that it is "likely as not, or at
least possible" that exposure to noise while in the navy
caused these disabilities. However, the audiometric findings
were provided in graphic instead of numeric form. The Board
is unable interpret the audiograms which are presented in
graphic rather than numerical form. See Kelly v. Brown, 7
Vet. App. 471 (1995).
Under VA regulations, impaired hearing is considered a
disability when the auditory threshold in any of the
frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels
or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least
three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz
are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores
using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38
C.F.R. § 3.385 (2007). Therefore, a VA audiology examination
is necessary for the Board to determine whether the veteran
has a hearing disability under VA standards.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Schedule the veteran for a VA
audiological evaluation. The claims file
and a copy of this remand must be made
available to and reviewed by the examiner
in conjunction with the examination. All
necessary tests should be conducted.
The examiner should determine whether the
veteran has hearing loss and/or tinnitus;
and if so, provide a medical opinion as to
whether it is at least as likely as not
(50 percent or greater probability) that
any diagnosed hearing loss or tinnitus had
its onset during active service or is
related to any in-service disease or
injury, including noise exposure.
The examiner must provide a comprehensive
report including complete rationales for
all opinions and conclusions reached,
citing the objective medical findings
leading to the conclusions.
2. Thereafter, readjudicate the veteran's
claims on appeal. If the claims remain
denied, provide the veteran and his
representative with a supplemental
statement of the case and allow an
appropriate time for response.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2006).
_________________________________________________
P.M. DILORENZO
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).